vix.ing · top · new · best · stats

Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.

2025/10/01 by Elnaz Iranifard, Robab Latifnejad Roudsari, Malihe Amirian +1 · 2 voices
Medicine · #Organ Donation and Transplantation #Reproductive Biology and Fertility #Reproductive Health and Technologies

paper · doi:10.30476/ijcbnm.2025.104984.2674

openalex publication_date 2025/10/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/15 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/14

Abstract

Background: Reproductive donation is a challenging task, in which donors' needs are sometimes neglected. To provide reproductive donors with well-structured, evidence-based, and donor-centered care, it is essential to acknowledge their unique needs and preferences. This study aimed to synthesize the current evidence regarding donors' needs and preferences. Methods: This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) was conducted based on the recommended approach for MMSR by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for data synthesis. The databases of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched by two researchers separately, using keywords such as "egg donor", "sperm donor", "ovum donor", "gamete donor", "embryo donor", desire, expectation, preference, and need without a time limit, up to December 2024. Original research articles regarding reproductive donors' needs, written in English, were included in the study. Reviews, commentaries, letters to the editor, book chapters, and theses were excluded. Quality assessment was carried out by two researchers using JBI tools for cross-sectional, cohort, and qualitative studies. Data were synthesized by the convergent integrated approach by three researchers. Results: Through data synthesis of 34 eligible articles, six categories of reproductive donors' needs and preferences emerged. These categories included 1) Need for support, 2) Informational needs, 3) Need for counseling, 4) Requirement for financial policies, 5) Preference towards recognition of donors' rights, and 6) Need for preserving donors' dignity and respect. Conclusion: The protocol of this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024588821).

Discussions

Related